January 22, 2013 10:08 AM UTC

Guns: A new level of buffoonery at the statehouse.

•  
• by: (((JADodd)))

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Eleven senators and 7 members of the Colorado house, all Republican, have sunk to new lows of legislative buffoonery – SB 13-062. (It’s short, I urge you to go and look at it.) В For those of you who don’t follow links as a matter of principle let me give you a brief explanation of what the bill does:

If you own a “private business” that is open to the public (bar, restaurant, grocery store, coffee shop, law office, dentist’s office etc.) and you prohibit the carrying of firearms, whether concealed or open, on the premises of theВ business, where such carrying would otherwise beВ permitted under law, you are strictly liable (liability without proof of negligence or fault on your part) for any injury or loss one of your customers may suffer at the hand of anyone else – robber, nutcase, etc. – unless you hire at least one armed security guard.

As if owning and running a small business isn’t hard enough, these nitwits (I know name calling is not the preferred method ofВ political discourse, but I just couldn’t come up with anything else – actually, В I could, but it would have been worse.) want to strap small businesses with extraordinary costs just to allow gun nuts the ability to bring their tools of death into my business. “What costs?” you may ask.

The first would be insurance. Since the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the Second Amendment and right wing state legislatures have expanded the ability to carry concealed weapons, the insurance industry has taken note. The risk of liability is substantially higher if there are guns in a business. Therefore, liability policies where guns are allowed carry substantially higher premiums than policies for businesses that prohibit guns. One of the reasons that businesses prohibit firearms is that they can’t afford or don’t want to pay for the extra insurance.

“Ah,” you say, “then prohibit guns and hire an armed guard.” Sorry, but hiring an armed guard brings not only the wages of the guard but the liability insurance cost of having an armed guard. These combined costs would even be higher.

Finally, the expanded – no-fault – liability placed on businesses that prohibit guns and can’t afford to hire guards will generally increase insurance premiums. As is stands now, the business is not liable for the wrongs committed by someone outside the business unless the business is somehow found negligent. However, this bill would make the business liable for all injuries suffered by a customer at the hands of anyone else regardless of fault. (The bill essentially stands for the proposition that prohibiting all guns – even those of an armed security guard – from your business is per se negligence.) Insurance companies will deal with this added liability by jacking business liability insurance premiums.

What champions of business these nitwits are.